Part 10

Allusion has already been made to the congregation of St. Cuthbert, but of that body some further account must be given. The religious community, the congregation of St. Cuthbert, which ultimately settled at Durham, included the Bishop and the monks. The two formed one body, whose interests were identical, and whose property was in common; and the Bishop lived among the monks, over whom he ruled within the community as he ruled over the diocese without, having no estates or means of subsistence separate from the congregation of which he formed a part. This unity between the Bishop and the monks was very similar to that which prevailed amongst the early religious communities in Ireland and Scotland. The system went on at Durham until the establishment of the Benedictine Order there by Bishop William of St. Carileph, shortly after the Norman Conquest. He was the second Bishop appointed by William I., Walcher, the first Norman Bishop, having been killed, after a short reign, by his own people at Gateshead, during a rebellion caused by the oppression of his officials. William of St. Carileph, Abbot of St. Vincent, became Bishop in 1081. Originally a secular priest, he afterwards became a monk in the monastery of St. Calais, and such an establishment as that he found at Durham must have been most distasteful to him. A Benedictine monk himself, he naturally preferred being surrounded by religious of his own Order, and not by those of whose system he disapproved. In the time of Bishop Walcher the ancient monasteries of Jarrow and Wearmouth were to a great extent, though probably not altogether, deserted, and had been so since they were laid waste by the Danes. When Bishop William determined upon establishing Benedictine monks at Durham, he found these two monasteries already existing at Jarrow and Wearmouth. Thinking there were not sufficient provision for the maintenance of more than one monastery, he transferred the monks from Jarrow and Wearmouth to Durham in 1083, and founded a Benedictine house there. He became a party to the rebellion against William Rufus in 1088, and was driven an exile for three years into Normandy. It may well be that during his sojourn there he conceived the design of replacing the old church by a new and more magnificent one. Normandy at that time was full of large and noble churches, many lately erected, and we can readily understand how the thought may have passed across the mind of Carileph that, if he ever returned to Durham, he would raise there a more glorious building, and one better adapted to the wants of the new community than the church he had left behind him. At all events, on his return, he determined to build a new church, and may we not suppose that gratitude was among the motives which induced him to do this? In the meanwhile, during the time of his exile, as we learn from Symeon, the monks had built the refectory as, says he, it now stands. Symeon was living in the early part of the twelfth century; he therefore speaks with authority. The crypt under the refectory, which still exists, cannot be later than Symeon’s time, and must therefore be part of the refectory built during Carileph’s exile (1088-1091), and is therefore in either case one of the earliest buildings at Durham in connection with the monastery.

[Illustration:

_W LEIGHTON 1909_

THE CRYPT, DURHAM CATHEDRAL.]

This very ancient structure lies on the south side of the cloister, and to the west of a contemporary passage leading from it into the great enclosure of the monastery, now called the college. The passage itself has an arcade of low blind arches on either side, and openings, possibly coeval with it, lead into the crypt under the refectory at one side, and into a smaller one on the other. The refectory crypt is low, being only seven and a half feet high, and commences at the east end with a division, which has a plain, barrel-shaped vault. From this an arched opening leads into the main area of the crypt. It is divided into three aisles by two rows of short, massive square pillars, four in each row, making five bays in the length. The pillars support a plain groined vault without ribs or transverse arches. This space is again succeeded towards the west by three divisions, the westernmost one being not so long as the others, all the three having, like the first and easternmost one, plain barrel vaults. Up to this point the whole crypt is of the same early date, but beyond, to the west of what appears to be an original wall, are some other structures, the cellar and pantry, of later times. The older crypt has been lighted on the south side by at least seven, or possibly more, small windows, all round-headed except one, which is circular.

To the east of the passage there is, as has already been stated, a smaller crypt, which in general corresponds with the architectural character of that under the refectory. It is now beneath the entrance-hall of the deanery, once part of the Prior’s hall, and has apparently been curtailed of some of its original length.

Symeon, a monk of Durham, already mentioned, lived when a great part of the work at the church was going on, and therefore his testimony is very important. He wrote a history of the church of Durham, and his history was continued after him by an anonymous writer. We next have a further continuation by Geoffrey de Coldingham, Robert de Graystanes, and William de Chambre, together with a number of indulgences from various Bishops, given towards obtaining means for making additions to and alterations in the building, and a few, but late, fabric rolls. Besides these there is a most important document, "A Description or Brief Declaration of all the Ancient Monuments, Rites, and Customs belonging or being within the Monastical Church of Durham before the Suppression," apparently written towards the end of the sixteenth century by someone who had been an inmate of the monastery. These form the series of historical evidences which now exist with regard to the dates of the various parts of the church.

In 1093, on August 11, the foundation-stones of the new church were laid, the foundations themselves having been dug on the preceding July 29. Aldhun’s church, as Symeon tells us, had been previously destroyed. There were then present Bishop William of St. Carileph; Turgot, Prior of the monastery, afterwards Bishop at St. Andrews; and, as other writers say, Malcolm, King of Scotland. The continuator of Symeon says that, on the accession of Flambard, he found the church finished as far as the nave. This statement does not, of course, imply that the whole of this was the work of Carileph, for the monks after his death had carried on the building of the church; but it appears on the whole probable that, with the exception of the west side of the transepts and the vaulting of the choir, all the church up to the point mentioned had been built before the death of Carileph.

It may be well to give here a general description of the Norman work, taking the nave first, as being the most important feature in the whole great scheme. The nave consists of three double compartments, a single bay westward of these, and the western bay flanked by the towers. The principal piers consist of triple shafts, placed on each face of a central mass, square in plan; the shafts rest on massive bases of cruciform plan, having a flat projecting band about the middle and a narrow plinth at the bottom. A similar band and plinth are carried beneath the wall-arcades of the nave and transepts and entirely round the church on the outside. In the choir, however, except on the piers of the tower arch, the bases are without a band, but have a plinth of greater height, the responds on the aisle walls being similar. The triple shafts next the nave or choir rise almost to the top of the triforium, and support the great transverse arches of the vault. The shafts next the aisles receive the diagonal and transverse ribs of the aisle vault, and the shafts on the two remaining faces receive the arches of the great arcade. The intermediate piers, in the centre of each double compartment, are circular in plan, and stand on square bases. The western pair of piers, at the corners of the towers, are clustered like the other main piers, but have two additional shafts (like the crossing piers), but these shafts on the side next the nave receive the diagonal ribs of the vault, whereas the additional shafts on the crossing piers support the outer order of the tower arches.

The triforium is of eight bays, having a containing arch with two sub-arches, the tympanum being solid. The clerestory has in each of its eight bays a lofty and wide arch with a smaller and lower one on each side, the central arch having a window fronting it. It has a wall passage which connects it with the clerestories on the west side of the transepts. The inner arcade in the eastern bays appears to be an insertion, possibly made when the vault was put on the nave. The idea of vaulting the nave was apparently abandoned, when the triforium stage was reached, and it is probable that the arrangement of the nave clerestory was at first not unlike that of the south transept. The resumption of the vaulting idea thus necessitated an alteration in the design of the clerestory.

The nave is covered a double quadripartite vault over each double compartment, without transverse ribs over the minor piers. The great transverse arches, which spring from the major piers, are pointed. The diagonal ribs, which rise from corbels inserted in the spandrils of the triforium arches, are semicircular. They are all decorated with zigzag.

The choir consists of two double compartments, and in its plan as a whole agrees with that of the nave. There are, however, some differences in the details. The piers of the great arcades, although similar in motive to those of the nave, are much longer from east to west, and are, in fact, more like sections of wall than piers. The clerestory is quite unlike that of the nave, having a plain round-headed arch in each bay, with a corresponding window, and is destitute of a wall passage. The triforiums on both sides of the choir and on the east side of the transepts are all very similar. They are lighted by windows, consisting of two small round-headed openings, about twenty inches apart, under a containing arch. The buttressing arches, which are opposite the piers, are semicircular in form, and are contemporaneous with the arcades. Each transept has two double bays, with an aisle on the east side. The vault on the north transept has one transverse arch, which is semicircular, the double bay to the north having a single quadripartite vault with segmental diagonal ribs. All the ribs are moulded with a roll between two hollows. The south transept has a similarly formed vault, but the ribs are enriched with zigzag. The triforium and other upper parts of the church are reached by staircases contained in two square internal projections which are in the north-west and south-west angles of the transept. The end walls of the transepts were probably lighted by three tiers of windows; the lowest--which still remains--though blocked up, in the south transept, is a single round-headed window. It is difficult to say what was the arrangement above, but probably there were three windows on the triforium level and one on that of the clerestory. Passages crossed the ends at these levels, but none now remain in their original state.

The vaults of the aisles of the choir, transepts, and nave, are quadripartite and are the same throughout, except that the diagonal ribs of the nave aisles beyond the two eastern bays have zigzag upon them.

The transverse ribs, which rise alike from both piers and columns, are composed of a flat soffit, with a roll and shallow on each edge, the diagonal ribs having a large roll between two hollows. The first compartment of the nave arcade, which comprises two bays and the east bay of the triforium arcade, correspond in their mouldings and other features with those of the choir, whereas in the remainder of the nave, although the elevation in its general design and principal features is the same, the mouldings in some essential particulars, especially in the use of the zigzag and the course of small sunk squares forming a quasi hood-moulding round the arches of the great arcade, differ from those of the choir. There is a difference also in the way in which the diagonal ribs of the main vault was carried. In the choir the diagonal ribs of the original Norman vault are supported on shafts, which still remain and rise from the level of the triforium floor; on the east side of the transept they are supported by similar shafts; in the nave they are supported on brackets formed of two grotesque heads, inserted in the spandrils between the containing arches of the triforium. The eastern compartment of the nave arcade, with the triforium arch above it, which, before the nave was completed, acted as an abutment to the tower arches on the west side, as the similar and corresponding arches of the transepts did on the north and south, must necessarily have been built at the same time as the tower arches themselves, and, therefore, naturally corresponds with them in the details.

The spiral grooving on the piers, a rare feature in Norman work, is seen in the choir and transepts, but not in the nave, where lozenge and zigzag patterns and flutings are used instead. The spirals are contrary to the ordinary direction of those on a screw. The eastern part of Carileph’s church no longer exists, having been replaced by a very beautiful eastern transept. Until some important excavations were made in 1895, it was generally believed that the choir ended in an apsidal termination, with an extension of the aisles forming an ambulatory round it. The foundations of the east end of the aisles, as well as of the choir, together with a small portion of the choir wall itself, were then discovered. From what remained it was shown that Carileph’s choir terminated in three apses, the central one, which extended 27 feet beyond the others, being semicircular on the outside as well as within, while those at the end of the aisles had been semicircular only on the inside, being finished square externally.

To Galfrid Rufus may be attributed the present great north and south doorways of the nave, themselves, however, replacing earlier ones. The sculpturing upon these doorways, and that upon the corbels which once supported the ribs at the east end of the chapter-house, have apparently been done by the same hand, and there is otherwise much in common between the decoration of these doorways and that of the chapter-house itself.

Skilfully wrought and probably contemporary ironwork covers the south door, still remaining in a very perfect state.

On the north door there are sufficient indications to show what was the pattern of the ironwork once there, and, indeed, with care and under a favourable light, the very elaborate design may be made out. The grotesque but effective sanctuary knocker of bronze, of the same date as the door itself, if it does not invite the unfortunate offender to seek for that protection now, happily, under more humane conditions, not needed for his safety, will recall to memory how the Church in a ruder age held out her saving hand, and interposed between the shedder of blood, sometimes guiltless, and the avenger.

The death of Bishop Carileph took place in 1096, and an interval of three years elapsed before the election of Bishop Flambard, in 1099, who is described as great by some, and infamous by other, writers.

Ralph Flambard was William Rufus’s Chancellor, and whether he was infamous or not, he was, anyhow, a remarkable man. We are told by the continuator of Symeon, that he carried on the work of the nave up to the roof--that is, that he completed the nave as far as the vault, including the side aisles and their vaults, and probably at the same time building that portion of the western towers which attains an equal elevation with the walls of the nave.

[Illustration: THE SANCTUARY KNOCKER, DURHAM CATHEDRAL.]

Flambard probably began to build soon after he became Bishop, and though that part of the church which is due to him might not have been finished until near the time of his death, no material alteration seems to have been made in the plan. With regard to the upper part of the western towers, and the time when they were built, we are entirely left to the evidence of the architecture itself, for nothing has been recorded which has reference to their erection. The upper stages belong to a time when the style called the Early English was being developed, and they may have been constructed during the episcopate of Richard de Marisco (1217-26), or even of Philip de Pictavia (1197-1208). Although the towers have suffered much from weathering, and more from the paring process, which, however, to some extent, has been remedied by the late reparation, they are well designed and very effective additions to the church as originally planned. In combination with the end of the nave and the bold mouldings of Pudsey’s Galilee, they form a termination which will not suffer even when compared with some of our finest west fronts. The upper part of both is enriched by four arcades, two open and two blank, of alternately round-headed and pointed arches. The towers were, until the time of the Commonwealth, surmounted by spires of wood covered with lead. At present they are finished by a parapet with turrets, placed there at the beginning of the present century, which, though faulty in detail, are, nevertheless, by no means unworthy of the towers they crown, and add materially to the picturesque outline of the cathedral when viewed from a distance.

Bishop Cosin, in his articles of inquiry at his first visitation in 1662, asks: "What is become of the wood and lead of the two great broaches that stood upon the square towers at the west end of the church?" (_Miscellanea_, Surtees Society, vol. xxxvii., p. 257). This inquiry was repeated in Cosin’s second visitation, July 17, 1665, and the reply made in the presentment of the minor canons, etc., was as follows: "And as for the lead and timber of the two great broaches at the west end of the church, Mr. Gilbert Marshall can give the best account how they were employed" (Hunter MSS., vol. xi., No. 94). To

[Illustration: THE WESTERN TOWERS OF DURHAM CATHEDRAL, FROM THE WINDOW OF THE MONKS’ LIBRARY.

_From a Drawing by R. W. Billings._]

this reply James Green, minor canon and sacrist, adds: "Mr. Gilbert Marshall, Mr. Gilpin, and Mr. Anthony Smith, can best tell what became of it" (Hunter MSS., vol. xi., No. 98). Bishop Cosin would remember them as being on the towers when he was Prebendary before the time of the Commonwealth. That they were never rebuilt is shown by Buck’s view, published in 1732, where the towers are without spires.

The most important, as it is not the least striking and beautiful, object in the choir is the large and lofty throne, built by Bishop Thomas de Hatfield (1345-81) during his lifetime, for his tomb beneath and the throne above. It is a structure worthy of the Palatine See of Durham and of the mighty Prince-Bishop who erected it. The alabaster figure of the Bishop still remains, comparatively perfect, clothed in richly decorated pontifical vestments, lying on an altar-tomb under a canopy whose groining is finely ornamented with bosses of boldly sculptured foliage. Upon the wall at each end of the arch, and opposite to the head and feet of the Bishop, are two angels painted in fresco. Those at the feet hold a blank shield, but at the other end the painting is too much damaged to allow the object they hold to be made out. The whole throne has once been richly gilded and coloured, and contains many shields with the Bishop’s and other arms upon them. In the construction of the upper portion of the throne it is not well fitted into the space it occupies between the pillars, and some of its parts do not quite correspond with each other. The impression given by these incongruities is that Hatfield used some pieces of stonework already carved before he planned the throne, and that it possibly was, like the Galilee, not intended from the first to occupy the position in which it was ultimately placed.

Another beautiful piece of work of about the same period as the throne is the screen behind the high-altar, commenced to be built in 1372 and finished before 1380, when the altar was dedicated. It is commonly called the Neville Screen, on account of a great part of the expense of erecting it having been defrayed by John, Lord Neville, of Raby, though Prior Fossor (1341-74), Prior Berrington (1374-91), and others, bore some part of the cost. It was brought from London to Newcastle by sea, and has always been spoken of as made of Caen stone, "French peere" as it is called in the rites of Durham, being really Dorsetshire clunch.